DYSLEXIA

Published online 19 November 2007 in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/dys.356

&

Adults with Dyslexia

Demonstrate Attentional
Orienting Deficits
Judy Buchholz1,* and Anne Aimola Davies1,2
1
2

The School of Psychology, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia
Macquarie Centre for Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

Alerting, orienting and executive control of attention are

investigated in five adult cases of dyslexia. In comparison with a
control group, alerting and executive control were found to be
generally intact for each case. Two spatial cueing tasks were
employed. For the task requiring target detection, orienting
difficulties were evident only in peripheral locations. While
orienting attention to parafoveal stimuli was intact for this detection
task, it was found to be impaired for the discrimination task. These
results are discussed with respect to the methodological differences
of the two tasks. It is suggested that the observed orienting deficit
may be specific to adjusting the size of attentional focus in
individuals with dyslexia, and that this could contribute to the
reading difficulties observed. Copyright # 2007 John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
Keywords: dyslexia; visual attention; spatial cueing; alerting; orienting; executive control

INTRODUCTION

t is undeniable that a disruption to visual attentional processes plays a role

in dyslexia. However, it remains unclear whether individuals with dyslexia
have a general attentional difficulty or a more specific deficit. For example,
difficulties have been demonstrated in maintaining attentional focus (Facoetti,
Paganoni, Turatto, Marzola, & Mascetti, 2000), orienting attention (e.g. Brannan &
Williams, 1987; Buchholz & Aimola Davies, 2005; Facoetti & Molteni, 2001;
Facoetti, Paganoni, & Lorusso, 2000) and shifting attention (e.g. Buchholz &
McKone, 2004; Vidyasagar & Pammer, 1999).
The present study examines visual attentional processing in adults with
developmental dyslexia who show phonological problems. These were individuals with a high average-IQ and a demonstrated ability to perform on tasks

*Correspondence to: Judy Buchholz, School of Psychology, Building 39, Australian

National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia. E-mail: Judy.Buchholz@anu.edu.au
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DYSLEXIA 14: 247270 (2008)

248

J. Buchholz and A. Aimola Davies

having high concentration demands. Performance was measured on two spatial

cueing tasks: a detection task and a discrimination task.

Assessing Visual Attentional Processes in Dyslexia

Visual attention acts as a filter for information, reducing the amount of stimuli in
the environment to a manageable quantity for processing by a limited capacity
system. Posner and Petersen (1990) proposed the existence of three independent
attentional networks with specific functions for alerting, orienting and executive
control. Alerting is defined as preparing and maintaining a state of readiness to
detect a stimulus, orienting selects particular sensory information by shifting and
reducing the attentional focus (see also Castiello & Umilta, 1990; Posner, Walker,
Friedrich, & Rafal, 1987; Turatto et al., 2000) and executive control is the process of
deciding about the relevance of presented stimuli to the task requirements (see
also Steinman, Steinman, & Lehmkuhle, 1995).
It is possible to examine the separate attentional effects of alerting, orienting
and executive control using a single test that combines spatial cueing with a
flanker task (Fan, McCandliss, Sommer, Raz, & Posner, 2002). In this task, an
individual must determine the direction of a centrally positioned arrow (that can
occur above or below fixation), which may be accompanied by flanker arrows
that point either in the same direction or in the opposite direction. Attentional
performance on this discrimination task is measured by how response times
(RTs) are influenced by alerting cues, spatial cues and flankers. Bednarek et al.
(2004) examined these effects in children with dyslexia and determined that
when compared with an age-matched control group they showed difficulties
only in executive control. Rizzolatti, Riggo, Dascola, and Umilta (1987) also
propose that the RT deficits shown by individuals with dyslexia on tasks
examining covert attention are due to deficient executive control, that is,
suppressing the executive decision to move the eyes results in slowed responses
to stimuli.
The ability to covertly orient attention is typically investigated by using a
spatial cueing experiment, in which attention is oriented without eye movements
(Posner, Snyder, & Davidson, 1980). The method requires presentation of a spatial
cue followed by a target, either in the same position as the cue (valid) or in an
alternative location to the cue (invalid). The cue effect is shown on this detection
task when RTs of the valid-cue condition are faster than the invalid-cue
condition. This difference in RT for the two conditions provides a measure of
orienting ability. Both adults and children with dyslexia have shown orienting
difficulties on this type of spatial cueing task (Brannan & Williams, 1987;
Buchholz & Aimola Davies, 2005; Facoetti, Lorusso, Paganoni, Umilta, &
Mascetti, 2003; Facoetti & Molteni, 2001; Facoetti, Paganoni, & Lorusso, 2000;
Facoetti, Paganoni, Turatto et al., 2000; Facoetti, Turatto, Lorusso, & Mascetti,
2001).
Facoetti and colleagues have proposed that the orienting difficulties observed
in their studies of children with dyslexia are the result of a diffusely distributed
attentional system (Facoetti et al., 2001, 2003; Facoetti & Molteni, 2001; Facoetti,
Paganoni, & Lorusso, 2000, Facoetti, Paganoni, Turatto et al., 2000). Specifically,
increasing eccentricity from central fixation did not lead to the expected increase
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DYSLEXIA 14: 247270 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/dys

Attentional Orienting in Adult Dyslexia

249

in RTs for stimulus detection. This was interpreted as evidence for . . . a deficit in
mechanisms inhibiting laterally distracting information (Facoetti & Molteni,
2001, p. 353). These researchers observed that children with dyslexia showed
longer RTs for peripheral targets with a large cue (7.58) than for those with a
smaller cue (2.58) at short stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). This pattern was
similar to the response pattern of the control group. Thus, both groups
demonstrated a cue size effect. However, while the control group showed
improved performance for both cue sizes and maintained a cue size difference in
RTs at longer SOA, the children with dyslexia only showed improved target
detection for the larger cue size. This, together with the lack of a cueing effect for
peripheral stimuli, suggested a difficulty in maintaining the size of the attentional
focus in the periphery (Facoetti, Paganoni, Turatto et al., 2000).
In a recent case study of adults with dyslexia (ADys) (Buchholz & Aimola
Davies, 2005), using a Posner-type cueing paradigm, it was found that the ability
to orient attention was dependent on the distance from fixation of cue
presentation. These individuals showed a difficulty in orienting attention in a
peripheral location, whereas orienting ability appeared intact (although slower
than the control group) close to fixation. This suggests that, for these ADys, the
peripheral cue may not capture and focus attention so that attention remains
diffuse. When these results are compared with those of Facoetti and colleagues, it
appears that the attentional difficulties associated with orienting in the periphery
in children persist into adulthood.

A Case for a Case Study

Studies examining attentional function in dyslexia have generally relied on
comparisons between a small group of individuals with dyslexia and a control
group. These comparisons do not always consider the nature and distribution of
individual differences within the groups. As such, the scores of a small number of
individuals who perform poorly can contribute unduly to overall mean
differences between the groups (Cornelissen, Richardson, Mason, Fowler, &
Stein, 1995; Hill, Bailey, Griffiths, & Snowling, 1999; McArthur & Hogben, 2001;
Roach, Edwards, & Hogben, 2004; Tallal, 1980; Witton, Stein, Stoodley, Rosner, &
Talcott, 2002).
In this study, the individual performance of five cases of adult dyslexia on two
spatial cueing tasks (a detection task and a discrimination task) will be compared
with a control group. We aim to investigate the attentional effects of alerting,
orienting and executive control. It is predicted that alerting will be intact for each
case of adult dyslexia, while deficits in executive control may be present.
Difficulties in orienting are expected, specifically with relation to peripheral as
compared with foveal processing.

EXPERIMENT 1
It has been suggested that the distribution of attention, both within and across the
left and right visual fields (VFs), is impaired in individuals with dyslexia. In this
experiment, we considered the possibility that this difficulty may be limited to
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DYSLEXIA 14: 247270 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/dys

250

J. Buchholz and A. Aimola Davies

the orienting of attention. We chose this task because, in addition to allowing

space-based and object-based components of attention to be studied (see
Buchholz & Aimola Davies, 2005), it allows orienting effects to be examined
both within and between two different eccentricities (the cue and target are
centred at either 3 or 6.58).

Materials and Methods

Participants
The control group consisted of 16 adult volunteers. The cases of ADys were
members of an experimental research participant pool. Each participant received
30 dollars as compensation for their time and travel. These ADys had received a
diagnosis of dyslexia as children and currently met the criteria of dyslexia as
determined on the Dyslexic Adult Screening Test (DAST: Fawcett & Nicolson,
1998). All participants reported that they did not suffer an attention deficit
disorder or mood disorder. This was substantiated directly through questions
based on DSM-IV criteria (American Psychiatric Association, 2000), and
indirectly through observation by a trained clinician. The participants had also
successfully completed an optometric assessment within the last two years.
Verbal and non-verbal functioning were assessed using the Wechsler Abbreviated
TM
Scale of Intelligence (WASI : Wechsler, 1999). Reading and spelling abilities were
evaluated using the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT-3 revised: Jastak &
Wilkinson, 1984). Phonological abilities were assessed on a phonemic segmentation task (DAST) and a non-word reading task (Au & Lovegrove, 2001). Scores for
the control group and the five ADys cases are presented in Table 1.
All participants reported normal or corrected to normal vision. All participants
gave informed consent. The study was approved by the Australian National
University Human Research Ethics Committee.
As given in Table 1, no significant differences were found between each
individual ADys case and the control group on measures of Verbal IQ,
Performance IQ and Full-scale IQ. According to the WASI norms for significant

Table 1. Scores for the control group (mean and SD) and each ADys case on tests of
intelligence, literacy and phonological ability
Control (N 16)

WASI: verbal IQa

WASI: performance IQa
WASI: Full-scale IQa
WRAT-3 readinga
WRAT-3 spellinga
DAST
Phoneme segmentation (max 15)
Non-word reading (max 60)

GM

GP

SW

TC

SM

Mean

s.d.

120.75
121.88
123.44
109.63
112.81

8.82
8.67
9.32
4.77
5.02

112 113 120

123 125 128
120 121 127
81***
94 76***
71*** 87*** 73***

14.30
58.31

0.90
1.20

6*** 11** 8*** 10** 9***

37*** 45*** 39*** 34*** 22***

113
118
117
90**
94**

114
127
128
105
100

Note: Significance of differences between case scores and the control group means: **p50.01, ***p50.001 (modified
CI to normal population is p50.05; Crawford & Howell, 1998).
a
Standardized score.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DYSLEXIA 14: 247270 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/dys

Attentional Orienting in Adult Dyslexia

251

discrepancies, Performance IQ was significantly higher than Verbal IQ for all

ADys cases (except case SW), a finding that is often reported for individuals with
learning disabilities. Analysis of data from the standardized literacy tests
revealed impaired performance for all ADys cases (except case SM) compared
with the control group. However, with the exception of cases SW and GM, all
were within the normal range on these tests, that is, within one standard
deviation of the standardized mean. Phonological difficulties were shown by all
ADys cases, with decreased ability at phonemic segmentation and non-word
reading being evident. This is consistent with the findings of previous studies of
ADys (e.g. Bruck, 1992; Brunswick et al., 1999; Fawcett & Nicolson, 1995; Felton,
Naylor, & Wood, 1990; Paulesu et al., 1996) where phonological processing
difficulties persisted even when literacy skills were in the average range. This
may depend on ADys literacy training and the ability to use an orthographic
strategy (sight vocabulary).

Apparatus and Procedure

Stimuli were presented using PsyScript on an Apple computer running OS-9
with a 17-in computer screen and a refresh rate of 85 Hz. Participants viewed the
screen from a distance of approximately 65 cm. Two adjacent vertical or
horizontal rectangles appeared in the visual display, in each of the left and right
VFs, alongside a fixation cross (0.48
0.48 of visual angle) which was present
throughout each trial (see Figure 1). The rectangles subtended 4.58
18 of visual
angle, and were a light grey colour presented on a white background. The
distance between the rectangles was 2.58 and the closest edge of any rectangle
was 2.58 from the central fixation cross. After 1000 ms, the edge of one end of one
rectangle was darkened briefly for 100 ms, cueing the participant to attend to that
location. While maintaining fixation, the participants task was to detect a dark
square (18
18 of visual angle) which occurred either at a cued location (valid) or
at an uncued location (invalid). The centre position of the stimulus rectangles
appeared at either 3 or 6.58 eccentricity from fixation. The target square appeared
after a 200 ms delay following the cue, and remained on the screen until the
participant made a simple response (or for a maximum of 1200 ms) demonstrating detection of the target.
Stimuli were presented in six blocks of 160 trials. In any given block, the target
appeared in the cued location on 60% of trials and the uncued location on 20% of
trials. On 10% of trials no cue was given prior to the target and in a further 10% of
trials a cue appeared without a target (catch trials). Any given cuetarget trial
was presented within a single visual hemifield (right or left). On half of the
invalid trials, the cue and target occurred at the same eccentricity (either 3 or 6.58)
but at different locations, that is, in either the top or bottom part of the VF, e.g. the
cue appeared at 38 in the top VF and the target appeared at 38 in the bottom VF.
For the other half of trials, location (top or bottom) remained the same but the
eccentricity between the cue and target differed, e.g. cue appeared in the top VF
at 38 eccentricity and target appeared in the top VF at 6.58 eccentricity. There were
neither across hemifield attention shifts nor diagonal attention shifts within
hemifield. All conditions were randomly intermixed in each block, with 50% of
trials for each condition occurring in each VF. Individual testing lasted
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DYSLEXIA 14: 247270 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/dys

252

J. Buchholz and A. Aimola Davies

Figure 1. Experimental procedure. Trial sequences of valid and invalid trials for both
vertical and horizontal rectangles.

approximately 45 min and began with 20 randomized practice trials. Participants

were instructed to respond as quickly and accurately as possible.

Results
Responses to catch trials and missed responses were not analysed. Trials with RTs
faster than 100 ms or more than 2.5 standard deviations from the individuals
mean for that condition were defined as anticipations or outliers and excluded
from further analysis. This resulted in less than 1% of data being removed for any
individual. Summary data for no-cue, invalid-cue and valid-cue trials are
presented in Table 2.
Given that assumptions of analysis of variance (ANOVA) could be violated if
the control group were compared directly with the dyslexia group, due to an
expected greater variance in the clinical sample (e.g. Cornelissen et al., 1995;
Roach et al., 2004; Tallal, 1980; Witton et al., 2002), data analysis proceeded as
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DYSLEXIA 14: 247270 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/dys

253

Attentional Orienting in Adult Dyslexia

Table 2. Summary RTs (ms) of no-cue, invalid-cue and valid-cue conditions for the control
group (N 16) and each ADys case
Cue condition
No-cue
Target eccentricity 3
(degrees)

Invalid-withineccentricity

Invalid-acrosseccentricity

Valid

6.5

6.5

6.5

6.5

RVF
Control: mean
(s.d.)
GM
GP
SW
TC
SM

491.56
(60.47)
548.17
554.42
491.96
539.63
582.50

506.84
(59.97)
577.65
601.58
499.83
570.25
628.67

346.25
(52.58)
437.79
432.04
392.17
418.21
407.33

347.82
(53.58)
414.25
429.67
351.79
391.33
394.08

333.65
(46.59)
391.13
398.42
343.71
389.71
380.67

332.09
(60.56)
478.17
460.17
405.67
441.54
441.46

302.76
(44.80)
380.98
387.06
342.87
369.01
380.49

304.13
(47.98)
398.81
402.73
347.83
379.88
380.06

LVF
Control: mean
(s.d.)
GM
GP
SW
TC
SM

490.61
(59.42)
549.08
566.38
483.83
528.00
555.17

512.74
(56.14)
591.25
603.04
512.42
574.38
575.70

349.26
(58.74)
441.17
468.25
374.25
412.96
420.17

353.77
(60.47)
412.75
423.00
357.38
398.65
407.25

340.91
(56.93)
414.25
403.75
365.79
375.21
377.67

333.60
(44.69)
478.50
461.04
375.29
495.04
445.29

305.21
(48.59)
386.34
407.46
341.90
369.17
382.78

310.76
(45.66)
395.95
421.55
338.49
377.81
384.50

Note: Invalid-within-eccentricity condition refers to a cue appearing at the same eccentricity as the target but at a
different location (high or low) in the same visual field. Invalid-across-eccentricity condition refers to a cue
appearing at the same relative location to the target but at a different eccentricity in the same visual field.

follows: Control group analysis of individual participant mean RT data for each
condition using ANOVA. Individual dyslexia case raw RTs were then analysed
with ANOVA, which was analytically sound since RT skew in all conditions
occurred in the same direction within the individual case data (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2001). Finally, individual case to control group comparisons were made,
employing Crawford and Howells modification of the one-sample t-test
(Crawford & Garthwaite, 2002; Crawford & Howell, 1998). Under the null
hypothesis, the ADys case is treated as an observation from a distribution with
the same mean and variance as the control group. The difference from the onesample t-test is that, rather than treat the control scores as population statistics,
the control variance is adjusted to take into account the control sample size. This
test has been shown to control Type I and Type II error rate appropriately, and is
also robust even when the control data are severely skewed (Crawford &
Garthwaite, 2005).y

y
t X  X=S11 n 1=n where X* is the ADys case score, X and S are the mean and
standard deviation (respectively) of scores in the control sample and n is the size of the
control sample.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DYSLEXIA 14: 247270 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/dys

254

J. Buchholz and A. Aimola Davies

Target Detection at Each Eccentricity

An initial analysis was carried out on the no-cue data to examine the participants
ability to detect targets without alerting and orienting effects on attention. For the
control group, a two-way ANOVA on VF (left or right) and eccentricity (3 or 6.58)
was carried out on group RT means for each condition. The only significant
finding was a main effect of eccentricity F1,15 15:89, p 0:001, indicating that
RTs to targets at 6.58 were longer than at 38 in both VFs (see Table 2).
The data (raw RTs) were then analysed for each ADys case in turn. Two-way
ANOVAs determined that each case showed the same pattern of response as the
control group. A significant main effect of eccentricity (ps50.01), indicating
longer RTs to targets at 6.58 than at 38. Case SM also showed a main effect of VF
(p50.01), indicating faster RTs in the left visual field (LVF) than in the right visual
field (RVF). No other significant effect or interaction was observed for any case.
The size of the eccentricity effect was calculated by subtracting the RT to
targets with no-cue at 38 eccentricity from the RT to targets with no-cue at 6.58
eccentricity at the same location (upper or lower). The distribution of difference
scores for the control group and each ADys case in each VF is shown in Figure 2.
Planned comparisons of the eccentricity effect, made between the control group
and each ADys case, showed no significant differences in both VFs (ps>0.05).
Thus, all the ADys cases respond as well as the control group to a target
presented without cueing at either eccentricity within each VF.
Effect of Cues on RT
From Table 2 it appears that both the valid and invalid cues improve
performance since the RTs are much lower for both of these conditions compared
with the no-cue condition. For the control group, a three-way ANOVA was
carried out, with VF (left or right), eccentricity (3 or 6.58) and cue type (either no
cue vs valid) as factors. Significant main effects of cue type, F1,15 230:93,
p50:001, and eccentricity, F1,15 19:32, p 0:001, were found. These results
indicate overall longer RTs for targets preceded by no cue than for targets

Figure 2. No-cue condition: Effects of eccentricity (right and left visual field) for the
control group (mean and standard deviation), and the distribution of means for the adults
with dyslexia (ADys). No ADys case was significantly different from the control group.
Note that the eccentricity effect is based on the RT at 38 eccentricity subtracted from the RT
at 6.58 eccentricity.
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DYSLEXIA 14: 247270 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/dys

Attentional Orienting in Adult Dyslexia

255

preceded by a valid cue, and longer RTs to targets presented at 6.58 than 38
eccentricity. A significant interaction between cue type and eccentricity was also
observed, F1,15 9:62, p50:01, indicating that the effect of eccentricity was
greater for the no-cue condition than the valid-cue condition.
The data were then analysed for each ADys case in turn. Significant main
effects of cue type and eccentricity were found for all ADys cases, as well as a
significant interaction between cue type and eccentricity (ps50.05). These results
indicated longer RTs to targets preceded by no cue than a valid cue, longer RTs to
targets at 6.58 than 38 eccentricity, and a greater effect of eccentricity for the nocue condition than the valid-cue condition. Thus, for the no-cue and valid-cue
conditions, it appears that the pattern of performance by the ADys cases was
similar to the control group.
A further three-way ANOVA was carried out on control group data, with VF
(left or right), eccentricity (3 or 6.58) and cue type (either no cue vs invalid) as
factors. [Note: The invalid trials used in this analysis were those where the cue
and target appeared at the same eccentricity but at different locations, that is,
within-eccentricity shifts of attention were required.z] Significant main effects of
cue type, F1,15 108:33, p50.001, and eccentricity, F1,15 12:90, p50:01,
were found. These results indicate overall longer RTs for targets preceded by no
cue than for targets preceded by an invalid cue, and longer RTs to targets
presented at 6.58 than 38 eccentricity.
The data were then analysed for each ADys case in turn. A significant main
effect of cue type and a significant interaction between cue type and eccentricity
(ps50.05) were found for all ADys cases. Similar to the control group, these
results indicated overall longer RTs to targets preceded by no cue than an invalid
cue, and RTs to targets with no cue were longer in the periphery (6.58) than closer
to fixation (38). In contrast to the control group, RTs to targets following an
invalid cue were shorter in the periphery than close to fixation.
Inspection of Table 2 also shows that all ADys cases demonstrated generally
longer RT latencies than the control group. Thus, it appears that the ADys
performance differs from the control group in response to targets preceded by an
invalid cue. This is examined further in the next section.
Attentional Orienting
The RT cost of orienting attention to an invalid cue is calculated by subtracting
the RTs for the valid-cue condition from those of the invalid-cue condition with
the same target position, that is, VF, eccentricity and location. Both cue types
provide alerting and broad lateral orienting effects on attention (as shown by the
improved performance relative to no-cue in the previous analysis), but only the
valid cue provides correct predictive spatial information because the individual
does not need to disengage from an invalid-cue position to detect the target. The
ability to orient attention is indicated by a positive RT cost.
z

Invalid shifts at each eccentricity in this analysis include vertical rectangle within-object
shifts and horizontal rectangle between-object shifts, e.g. the cue and target presented at
38 eccentricity in different horizontal rectangles (upper or lower of the same VF), or
at 38 eccentricity at different locations (upper or lower of the same VF) within the same
vertical rectangle. These data provide a measure of cue effect within each given
eccentricity, allowing a direct comparison with the no-cue condition.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DYSLEXIA 14: 247270 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/dys

256

J. Buchholz and A. Aimola Davies

Table 3. Summary orienting costs (ms) associated with attention shifts within- or acrosseccentricity, for the control group (N 16) and each ADys case
Orienting cost of attention shift
Within-eccentricity
Target eccentricity
(degrees)

Across-eccentricity

6.5

6.5

RVF
Control: mean
(s.d.)
GM
GP
SW
TC
SM

43.50
(19.53)
56.81
44.98
49.30
49.20
39.68

43.69
(12.78)
15.44
26.94
3.96
11.45
14.02

30.90
(15.14)
10.15
11.36
0.84
20.70
0.18

27.96
(16.30)
79.36
57.44
57.84
61.66
61.40

LVF
Control: mean
(s.d.)
GM
GP
SW
TC
SM

44.05
(21.51)
54.83
60.79
32.35
43.79
24.55

43.02
(18.61)
16.80
1.45
18.89
30.94
22.75

35.70
(22.08)
27.91
3.71
23.89
6.04
5.11

22.84
(20.93)
82.55
39.49
36.80
117.23
60.79

Note: Within-eccentricity refers to the cost of orienting attention associated with shifting attention to different
locations within the same eccentricity and visual field. Across-eccentricity refers to the cost of orienting attention
associated with shifting attention to different eccentricities but in the same relative location and visual field.

Orienting attention at each eccentricity (3 and 6.58) was examined in two ways.
First, by examining the RT costs associated with shifts of attention occurring
within a given eccentricity. That is, where the invalid conditions required the cue
and target to appear in the same VF, within the same eccentricity (38 only or 6.58
only) but at different locations (either upper or lower VF). Second, by examining
the RT costs associated with shifts of attention across eccentricities. That is, where
the invalid condition required the cue and target to appear in the same VF, at
different eccentricities (3 or 6.58) but at the same relative location (upper VF only
or lower VF only). A summary of the RT costs of orienting following an invalid
cue in these two conditions (for both the control group and ADys cases) is given
in Table 3.
Orienting attention: Within-eccentricity. For the control group, a two-way ANOVA
on VF (left or right) and target eccentricity (3 or 6.58) was carried out for RT costs
associated with shifting attention following an invalid cue within each
eccentricity. There were no significant main effects or interactions found
(ps>0.20).
An inspection of Table 3 shows that compared with the control group, all ADys
cases demonstrated lower RT costs of shifting attention within 6.58 eccentricity
compared with within 38 eccentricity in both VFs. The significance of this
apparent eccentricity effect was examined in each VF for each ADys case,
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DYSLEXIA 14: 247270 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/dys

Attentional Orienting in Adult Dyslexia

257

compared against the control group. The size of the eccentricity effect was
calculated by subtracting the RT cost within 6.58 eccentricity from the RT cost
within 38 eccentricity. The distribution of difference scores for the control group
and ADys cases in each VF is shown in Figure 3. The eccentricity effect of each
ADys case was tested for significance against the control group using the
Crawford and Howell (1998) modified t-test. Case GM showed a significantly
different eccentricity effect in both VFs, while for cases SW and TC this was only
significant in the RVF and for case GP in the LVF. Thus, for these individuals,
orienting attention within 6.58 eccentricity resulted in lower RT costs, which can
be interpreted as being relatively more difficult than orienting attention within 38
eccentricity, having higher RT costs (all ps50.05:)

Shifting attention: Across-eccentricity. For the control group, a two-way ANOVA on

VF (left or right) and target eccentricity (3 or 6.58) was carried out for RT costs
associated with shifting attention across eccentricities. There were no significant
main effects or interactions found (ps>0.20).
An inspection of Table 3 shows that compared with the control group, all ADys
cases demonstrated lower RT costs with a cue at 6.58 and target at 38, and higher
RT costs with a cue at 38 and target at 6.58. The significance of this apparent
eccentricity effect was examined in each VF for each ADys case, compared
against the control group. The size of the eccentricity effect was calculated by
subtracting the RT cost of a cue at 38 eccentricity from the RT cost of a cue at 6.58
eccentricity. The distribution of difference scores for the control group and ADys
cases in each VF is shown in Figure 4. The eccentricity effect of each ADys case
was tested for significance against the control group using the Crawford and
Howell (1998) modified t-test. All cases (except case SW) showed a significantly
larger eccentricity effect in both VFs. For case SW, this was only significant in the
RVF (all ps50.05).

Figure 3. Invalid-within condition: Effects of eccentricity (right and left visual field) for the
control group (mean and standard deviation) and the distribution of means for the adults
with dyslexia (ADys). Cases that were significantly different from the control group are
identified. Note that the eccentricity effect is based on RT at 38 eccentricity subtracted from
the RT at 6.58 eccentricity.
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DYSLEXIA 14: 247270 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/dys

258

J. Buchholz and A. Aimola Davies

Figure 4. Invalid-across condition: Effects of eccentricity (right and left visual field) for the
control group (mean and standard deviation), and the distribution of means for the adults
with dyslexia (ADys). Cases that were significantly different from the control group are
identified. Note that the eccentricity effect is based on RT at 38 eccentricity subtracted from
the RT at 6.58 eccentricity.

Summary of Results
All ADys cases showed overall benefits for target detection following cue
presentation. However, compared with the control group, a different pattern of
results was observed for attentional orienting. Specifically, each case demonstrated some difficulty associated with orienting to a cue at 6.58 eccentricity,
particularly in the RVF.

EXPERIMENT 2
We administered the Attentional Network Test (ANT; Fan et al., 2002) to examine
the alerting, orienting and executive function of attention in ADys cases. The
ANT is a discrimination task that examines attentional effects of alerting and
orienting very close to fixation (18 eccentricity).
Materials and Methods
Participants
The control group consisted of 11 paid adult volunteers (eight from Experiment 1
and three new volunteers). The five ADys cases consisted of those who
participated in Experiment 1.
Apparatus and Procedure
Stimuli were presented using Psyscope on an Apple computer running OS-9 with
a 17-in computer screen and a refresh rate of 85 Hz. Participants viewed the
screen from a distance of approximately 65 cm.
Participants were required to fixate on a central cross (0.48
0.48) which was
present throughout each trial. Stimuli appeared approximately 18 of visual angle
above or below fixation, and appeared in black on an off-white background (see
Figure 5). The task was to press one of two buttons on a keyboard to indicate
whether a target arrow, positioned directly above or below the fixation cross,
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DYSLEXIA 14: 247270 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/dys

Attentional Orienting in Adult Dyslexia

259

Figure 5. Experimental procedure: (A) the four cue conditions; (B) the six stimuli used;
and (C) example of the experimental procedure, with a double-cue and incongruent
stimuli. Bounding boxes were not presented on screen.

pointed to the left or to the right. The target arrow could appear alone (neutral
condition) or be flanked on either side by two arrows pointing in the same
direction (congruent condition) or in a different direction (incongruent condition). A single arrow consisted of 0.558 visual angle and the contours of adjacent
arrows were separated by 0.068 of visual angle. There were four cueing
conditions: no cue (fixation cross only), centre-cue (asterisk at fixation),
double-cue (asterisk above and below fixation corresponding to two possible
target-arrow locations) and spatial-cue (asterisk at target-arrow location, that is, a
valid-cue condition). The asterisk cue subtended 0.48
0.48 of visual angle.
Each trial consisted of a fixation period of random variable duration
(4001600 ms), followed by a cue (if present) for 100 ms, then another fixation
period of 400 ms followed by the stimulus that remained on screen until the
participant responded, or a maximum of 1700 ms. A post-target fixation period
followed, which was calculated by subtracting the first fixation period and RT
from 3500 ms. Each trial lasted a total maximum of 4000 ms. The experimental
session consisted of a 24-trial practice block in which participants received
feedback on their accuracy, and two experimental blocks of trials with no
feedback. Each experimental block consisted of 96 randomly presented trials
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DYSLEXIA 14: 247270 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/dys

260

J. Buchholz and A. Aimola Davies

(4 cue conditions
2 target locations
2 target directions
3 flanker conditions
2 repetitions). Participants were instructed to respond as quickly and
accurately as possible.
Results
Trials with RTs faster than 300 ms or more than 2.5 standard deviations from the
individuals mean were excluded for the analysis of accuracy. Incorrect trials
were further excluded for RT analysis. This resulted in less than 1% of data being
removed for any individual. Analyses followed the same sequence as for
Experiment 1.
RT and Accuracy Score Analyses
Perceptual Ability. For the control group, a preliminary repeated-measures
ANOVA on mean RT data was carried out for the arrow with neutral flanker
in a no-cue condition, with target-arrow direction (right and left) and targetarrow location (above centre and below centre) as factors. No significant main
effects or interactions were found (ps>0.05). Data were then analysed for each
ADys case in turn. No significant main effects or interactions were found
(ps>0.05), indicating that the general perceptual abilities (e.g. distinguishing
right-facing arrows from left-facing arrows) of each ADys case were similar to
that of the control group. Note that in subsequent analyses, data were pooled
across target-arrow direction and location. A summary of accuracy and RT data is
presented in Table 4. Comparisons between the control group and each ADys
case of overall performance, using the Crawford and Howell (1998) modified ttest, indicated that RTs were significantly longer for all ADys cases (except GP)
(ps50.05).
Overall Accuracy. For the control group, a repeated-measures ANOVA of
accuracy data was performed with flanker (neutral, congruent, incongruent)

Table 4. Accuracy and RTs for the control group (mean and SD) and each ADys case as a
function of flanker condition
Flanker condition

Control (N 16)
Mean

Accuracy
(% correct)
Neutral
Congruent
Incongruent
Response time (ms)
Neutral
Congruent
Incongruent

GM

GP

SW

TC

SM

s.d.

98.15
99.57
97.02

1.03
1.23
1.96

100
98
98

98
100
90**

100
100
96

100
100
98

100
92**
68***

541.60
605.90
705.24

82.58
76.28
101.16

718*
848*
905*

540
591
684

597
682
773

579
649
753

658
928**
1186**

Note: Significance of differences between case scores and the control group means: *p50.05, **p50.01, ***p50.001
(modified t-test: Crawford & Howell, 1998).

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DYSLEXIA 14: 247270 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/dys

Attentional Orienting in Adult Dyslexia

261

and cue type (no cue, centre, double, spatial) as factors. Only a significant main
effect of flanker was found (F2,20 4:84, p50:02). This finding indicates
decreased accuracy between the congruent (99%) and incongruent (97%)
conditions (p50:05), but there were no significant differences between accuracy
in these conditions and the neutral condition (98%; ps>0.05).
Data were analysed for each ADys case in turn. A significant main effect of
flanker was found for all ADys cases (ps50.05). For all ADys cases (except GM),
this main effect indicates decreased accuracy in the incongruent-flanker
condition in comparison to the neutral- and congruent-flanker conditions. For
case GM, accuracy was reduced for both congruent-flanker (98%) and
incongruent-flanker (98%) conditions relative to the neutral-flanker (100%)
condition (see Table 4). No other significant effects were found.
Accuracy of each ADys case was compared with the control group in each
flanker condition using Crawford and Howells (1998) modified t-test. Case SM
showed significantly lower accuracy compared with the control group, for both
the incongruent-flanker condition (68% vs 97%; p50.001) and the congruentflanker condition (92% vs 99%; p50:001). This may indicate a processing
difficulty resulting from the increase in stimuli presented (that is, two flankers
each side of the target in the congruent- and incongruent-flanker conditions
compared with none in the no-flanker condition) and/or deficient executive
control. Case GP demonstrated significantly lower accuracy for the incongruentflanker condition only (90% vs 97% for the control group; p50:001), indicating
that this processing difficulty is more likely associated with deficient executive
control (conflict resolution) than the amount of information needing to be
processed.
Overall RT. For the control group, a repeated-measures ANOVA of RT data was
performed with flanker (neutral, congruent, incongruent) and cue type (no cue,
centre, double, spatial) as factors. A significant main effect of flanker was found
(F2,20 136:35, p50:001). The fastest RTs occurred in the neutral condition and
the slowest RTs occurred in the incongruent-flanker condition (see Table 4). A
significant main effect of cue type was also found (F2,20 37:3, p50:001). The
fastest RTs occurred in the spatial-cue condition followed by double- and centrecue conditions, and the slowest responses in the no-cue condition. This suggests
that performance is better when attention is focused on the location where the
target will appear.
Data were analysed for each ADys case in turn. A significant main effect
of flanker was found for all ADys cases (ps50.001), indicating fastest RTs in the
neutral condition and slowest RTs in the incongruent-flanker condition (see Table
4). The RT of each ADys case was compared with the control group in each
flanker condition using Crawford and Howells (1998) modified t-test. Case SM
showed significantly slower RTs compared with the control group, for both the
incongruent-flanker condition (1186 vs 705 ms; p50:01) and the congruentflanker condition (928 vs 605 ms; p50.01). (Case SM also showed lower accuracy,
which may indicate a processing difficulty due to the increase in stimuli
presented and/or deficient executive control.) Case GM demonstrated significantly slower RTs than the control group for all flanker conditions.
A significant main effect of cue type was also found (ps50.05). As with the
control group, for each ADys case the slowest responses occurred in the no-cue
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DYSLEXIA 14: 247270 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/dys

262

J. Buchholz and A. Aimola Davies

condition. In contrast to the control group, the fastest RTs occurred in the doublecue condition as opposed to the spatial-cue condition, indicating better
performance when attention is spread in the general area of both possible target
locations. Responses in the spatial- and centre-cue conditions are examined in the
following section.
Assessing Attentional Networks
Following the Posner model (Posner & Petersen, 1990), the attentional effects of
alerting, orienting and executive control were computed and the distribution of
scores for the control group and ADys cases are presented in Figure 6. The
alerting effect was calculated by subtracting the mean RT of the double-cue
condition from the mean RT of the no-cue condition. The mean alerting effect for
the control group was 33 ms with a standard deviation of 11 ms. The orienting
effect was calculated by subtracting the mean RT of the spatial (valid)-cue
condition from the mean RT of the centre-cue condition. The mean orienting
effect for the control group was 34 ms with a standard deviation of 12 ms. The
executive control effect was calculated by subtracting the mean RT of the
congruent-flanker condition, summed across cue types, from the mean RT of the
incongruent-flanker condition. The mean effect for the control group was 99 ms
with a standard deviation of 36 ms. A correlational analysis demonstrated no
significant correlations between the three forms of attention: alerting, orienting
and executive control (largest r 0:331, p > 0:05). This is consistent with previous
reports and it has thus been suggested that each attentional effect is functionally
independent (e.g. Fan et al., 2002).
Comparisons were made, between the means of the control group and that of
each ADys case, for each attentional effect using Crawford and Howells (1998)
modified t-test. The alerting effect for all ADys cases was not significantly
different from the control group (ps>0.05). Thus, the presence of a cue prior to
target presentation appears to have increased the level of readiness in both the
control group and each ADys case. In contrast, the orienting effect was
significantly different from the control group for all ADys cases (ps50.05).
Further analysis using single sample t-tests revealed that, for all ADys cases, RTs

Figure 6. Alerting, orienting and conflict measures of attention for the control group
(mean and standard deviation), and the distribution of means for the adults with dyslexia
(ADys). Cases that were significantly different from the control group are identified.
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DYSLEXIA 14: 247270 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/dys

Attentional Orienting in Adult Dyslexia

263

to centre-cue targets were no different from RTs to spatial-cue targets (ps>0.05).

From this result, it appears that the single spatial (valid) cue is not orienting
attention to the specific location, since this cue did not lead to faster RT compared
with the single centre (invalid) cue. Furthermore, RTs to spatial-cue targets were
significantly greater than RTs to double-cue targets for all ADys cases (ps50.05).
Together with the previous finding of faster RTs in the double-cue than no-cue
condition, these findings suggest that although attention may be alerted by a
single cue (as indicated by faster RTs when a single cue is presented compared
with when no cue is presented), the focus of attention remains more diffuse
(encompassing a larger visual area) than when a double-cue is presented for the
ADys cases. (Perhaps because the double-cue provides enough stimulation to the
attentional system to activate a reduction in focus size.)
In regard to executive control, only one case (SM) showed a significantly
different executive control effect to the control group, requiring much longer RTs
to resolve conflict (p50:001).
Summary of Results
Results for all ADys cases were comparable with those of the control group on
two attentional functions, alerting and, with the exception of SM, executive
function. In contrast, the control group demonstrated faster target detection
when attention was alerted and oriented to the subsequent spatial location of the
target by a single cue, whereas, for the ADys cases, target detection was fastest
when attention had been alerted and oriented by a double cue. Furthermore, the
single spatial cue in this experiment did not appear to provide the expected
orienting effect on attention for any of the ADys cases. In fact, the single spatialcue presentation resulted in longer RTs than the double-cue presentation.

DISCUSSION
This study of ADys cases showed that while the alerting effects of attention
appeared intact, and only two cases, GP and SM, showed a significant deficit in
executive control, there were specific orienting difficulties evident for all. These
findings are consistent with previous dyslexia research (Facoetti, Paganoni,
Turatto et al., 2000; Iles, Walsh, & Richardson, 2000; Roach & Hogben, 2004;
Vidyasagar & Pammer, 1999) and suggest an impairment of visual attention in
these individuals.
The Sluggish Attentional Shifting (SAS) hypothesis of dyslexia proposes that
impaired processing of rapid stimulus sequences arises due to sluggish
attentional capture (i.e. a deficit in stimulus engagement and disengagement)
and prolonged attentional dwell time (Hari & Renvall, 2001). Many studies have
reported slower responses by individuals with dyslexia to rapidly presented
visual stimuli (e.g. Laasonen, Service, & Virsu, 2002; Tallal, 1980). While the time
between cue presentation and subsequent target presentation (SOA) in each of
our experiments is close to optimum for the control group (see Cheal & Lyon,
1991; Muller & Rabbitt, 1989; Nakayama & Mackeben, 1989) it may be too short
for the ADys cases. It has been reported that the temporal separation necessary
for distinguishing two stimuli presented in rapid succession is as much as 100 ms
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DYSLEXIA 14: 247270 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/dys

264

J. Buchholz and A. Aimola Davies

longer for individuals with dyslexia (Lovegrove & Williams, 1993). Hari, Valta,
and Uutela (1999) reported the attentional dwell time of a group of ADys to be as
much as 30% longer than normal readers on an attentional blink task. Indeed, we
recently reported longer attentional dwell times for each of the dyslexia cases also
tested in the present study (Buchholz & Aimola Davies, 2007a). If one accepts the
SAS hypothesis, then in Experiment 1, this may explain both (a) the absence of
attentional costs (engagement deficit) when an invalid peripheral cue (6.58) is
used and the target is presented either at another peripheral location or more
centrally (38) and (b) the larger attentional costs (disengagement deficit) when a
more central invalid cue (38) is used and the target is presented peripherally
(6.58). However, if a disengagement deficit at 38 were present, it is difficult to
fully reconcile the finding that the cases of ADys were able (although slower) to
disengage their attentional focus when shifting attention within this location.
That is, for an invalid cue at 38 in the upper VF and target at 38 in the lower VF or
vice versa. Similarly, it may be argued that, since the discrimination task in
Experiment 2 is more difficult than the detection task in Experiment 1, the SOA
provided is not long enough to allow time for attention to be engaged. Thus, it is
understandable that there is no observable difference between RTs for the centralcue condition and the spatial-cue condition. There is no orienting effect because
the attentional focus is the same for each condition. What remains difficult to
explain, based on this theory, is the finding that there is an advantage of a doublecue for target discrimination. What we wish to argue for here is an alternative
account for these results. We propose that, although individuals with dyslexia
clearly demonstrate an alerting effect following cueing at all locations in the VF,
they may distribute their attention more widely, so that their attentional focus
may not be reduced to the same degree by the cue as it is for controls, and
importantly, the resulting deficits are most notable in the periphery.
When viewing a visual display, attention may be allocated evenly across the
entire display or can be focused on only one location within the display. Castiello
and Umilta (1990) examined the effect on RTs of varying target locations relative
to cued positions in a group of neurologically normal participants. RTs became
progressively faster as targets were placed closer to the cued location. They
concluded that the attentional focus was adjustable. In addition, they examined
the effect on RTs of varying both the presentation size of valid cues and SOA.
They found that RTs were faster when cue size was smaller. That is, as cue size
became smaller, attentional focus size became smaller, allowing attentional
resources to become more concentrated within a narrowly defined border and
processing speed to become faster at the cued location.
Given that Experiment 1 is a detection task and Experiment 2 is a
discrimination task, a direct comparison between the RT measures in each
cannot be made. However, since the underlying process of attentional orienting is
measured in both experiments, it is possible to conclude that this process is
compromised in dyslexia. Instead of a direct comparison of Experiments 1 and 2,
the characteristics of the attentional orienting difficulties in ADys can be explored
by comparing the findings of the present study with previous research using
similar methodologies of detection or discrimination. As we will demonstrate,
this area of research is limited and therefore comparisons are also confined.
In Experiment 1, it is assumed that faster RTs to validly-cued targets occur
because processing in the cued area is facilitated, while slower RTs to invalidlyCopyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DYSLEXIA 14: 247270 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/dys

Attentional Orienting in Adult Dyslexia

265

cued targets occur because, as with the control group, the attentional focus must
be disengaged from the cued location and shifted to a new location. Using a cue
size of 18 visual angle with the ADys cases, significant orienting difficulties were
found only in the periphery (6.58), as there was normal orienting performance
close to fixation (38). Thus, the 18 cue size was able to facilitate a narrowing of
attentional focus close to fixation. In comparison, RT was slower to targets
following valid cues in the periphery (since no facilitation occurred), while RT
was faster to targets following a peripheral invalid-cue (since disengagement and
shifting of attentional focus from the periphery were not required). The overall
result is a lack of an effect of orienting in the periphery. A lack of an effect of
orienting is similarly indicated by the finding that there is no significant
difference in RTs to targets close to fixation following an invalid peripheral cue
when compared specifically with valid cues in these locations.
The findings of Experiment 1 are consistent with those of Facoetti, Paganoni,
Turatto et al. (2000) and Focoetti et al. (2003), where orienting deficits were
observed in the periphery (8 and 108) for children with dyslexia. It is noted that
these researchers used larger cue sizes than in our experiment, that is 1.5 and 2.58
cues, respectively. In support of the hypothesis for a larger (less effective)
peripheral focus size in dyslexia, Facoetti, Paganoni, Turatto et al. (2000) reported
that, although children with dyslexia were capable of focusing on cue sizes of 2.5
and 7.58 presented peripherally (108), they had difficulty maintaining the smaller
attentional focus size with longer SOAs (504 ms). These results are relevant to the
findings of Experiment 1. The longer RT costs of shifting attention to a peripheral
target with an invalid cue close to fixation (see ADys cases GM and TC) may
occur because, in addition to the requirement to disengage the attentional focus
from the more central cue, the ADys may not be able to maintain the smaller
focus size in the periphery.
Our findings are also supported by what at first seems to be contradictory
results by Roach and Hogben (2004). They used a cue size less than 0.58 and, in
ADys, found a decreased orienting effect close to fixation (48), which contrasts to
our findings of effective orienting at 38 from fixation with a 18 cue size. These
findings from Experiment 1, along with previous research, demonstrate that
individuals with dyslexia may have both a larger attentional focus (in the
parafovea and the periphery), and be less effective at maintaining the attentional
focus. Furthermore, it appears that the attentional focus size increases with
eccentricity. Therefore, in order to detect an orienting deficit in dyslexia, stimulus
characteristics such as cue size and SOA need careful consideration.
In Experiment 2, a cue size of 0.58 of visual angle did not appear to facilitate a
narrowing of attentional focus size, that is, to the extent that it could assist target
discrimination with valid (spatial) cueing, or result in RT costs when disengaging
and shifting the attentional focus with invalid (central) cueing. These findings are
consistent with a discrimination study conducted by Brannan and Williams
(1987), which demonstrated an orienting deficit in children with dyslexia at 28
from fixation. However, it should be noted that while the cue size was less than
0.58, the SOA was much shorter than that used in Experiment 2. The detection
task used by Bednarek and colleagues (2004) may be more directly comparable
with that used in Experiment 2, with the only major methodological difference
being a larger cue size (>0.58). These researchers found no significant differences
in alerting and orienting performance between their dyslexia and control groups.
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DYSLEXIA 14: 247270 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/dys

266

J. Buchholz and A. Aimola Davies

However, they report poorer performance for their dyslexia group on executive
control. They suggest that their findings indicate a disability in narrowing the
focus of attention and in inhibiting interference. The double-cue to single-cue
advantage, demonstrated by the individuals with dyslexia in Experiment 2,
suggests that the two points of reference in the double-cue condition provided a
means for reducing the attentional focus at least to that extent, in comparison
with no benefits with the single cue. It is proposed that this difficulty with the
single-cue may be a difficulty specific to reducing the attentional focus size. This
may explain previous findings that suggest a diffuse attentional system, that is,
the system has difficulty in reducing focus under conditions where a control
group has no difficulty. Putting together the results from Experiment 2 and those
from the study by Bednarek and colleagues (2004), it appears that the attentional
focus at fovea is also larger in dyslexia.
The comparisons of the detection and discrimination tasks used in this study to
those of previous researchers (Bednarek et al., 2004; Brannan & Williams, 1987;
Facoetti, Paganoni, Turatto et al., 2000; Roach & Hogben, 2004) suggest that the
size of the attentional focus varies across the VF. That is, the size that the
attentional focus can be reduced to, and maintained at, is affected by spatial
location. However, the various studies described have methodological differences, such as detection vs discrimination, cue size, SOA, presentation in the
vertical vs horizontal meridian and child vs adult participants, which necessitates
caution in this interpretation. More robust support for this interpretation will
require a systematic investigation of the effects of cue size, SOA, and cue position
on orienting ability in individuals with dyslexia (Buchholz & Aimola Davies,
2007b, 2007c; Buchholz & Aimola Davies, submitted).
Visual attention is a major contributor to the development of competent
reading. For example, evidence suggests that sustained focused attention is
required for the analysis of strings of letters or words during fixations (LaBerge &
Brown, 1989), in addition to fast and accurate control of saccades between
fixations (Inhoff, Pollatsek, Posner, & Rayner, 1989). Allocating attention to useful
information that will facilitate processing at subsequent fixations, or parafoveal
preview benefit (Rayner & Pollatsek, 1989), also requires that irrelevant or
conflicting information be ignored. The size of the region from which useful
information is obtained during an eye fixation is referred to as the perceptual
span (McKonkie & Rayner, 1975). Several studies have shown that this span may
vary according to the difficulty a reader has in processing foveal information
(Henderson & Ferreira, 1990; Inhoff et al., 1989; Schroyens, Vitu, Brysbaert &
dYdewalle, 1999) and in deciding the relevance of parafoveal information
(Bertera & Rayner, 2000; Rayner & Fisher, 1987). Several studies have also
demonstrated that individuals with dyslexia have difficulty suppressing
peripheral information which could interfere with foveal processing (Geiger,
Lettvin, & Fahle, 1994; Geiger & Lettvin, 1999; Rayner, Murphy, Henderson, &
Pollatsek, 1989). Thus, fluent reading requires processing of a fixated word
together with information from the next word in the text (Rayner, 1998).
The difficulties with orienting attention in the periphery (all ADys cases), as
demonstrated in Experiment 1 of this study suggest that, when reading,
individuals with dyslexia are less able to readily gather information from words
that are not currently fixated. This lack of parafoveal preview benefit leads to a
slowed reading speed by these individuals. In addition to slowed processing,
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DYSLEXIA 14: 247270 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/dys

Attentional Orienting in Adult Dyslexia

267

these difficulties would interfere with the sequential left-to-right scanning that is
characteristic of phonological coding and necessary for reading fluently. That is,
it would be more difficult to make the visual/verbal correspondences required to
learn the phonological representations of new words and integrate them into
memory. Finally, reducing attentional focus size allows distracting information to
be minimized during reading, and therefore local word information (letters) can
be processed quickly and accurately. If we consider that the size to which the
attentional focus can be reduced is both limited and dependent on location in
space, then, the slowed processing of visual information and the greater
confusion across words (often reported in individuals with dyslexia; Stein,
1991) are more clearly explained.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
Taken together, the results of this study indicate that the attentional deficit in
dyslexia may be specific to orienting. It is suggested that the ability to adjust and
maintain the size of the attentional focus is both deficient and limited in
individuals with dyslexia, with these difficulties exacerbated in peripheral spatial
locations. These attentional deficits may account for the slowed reading and
slowed visual processing observed in studies of dyslexia.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Dr J. Fan for providing the stimuli for use in the
Attentional Network Test.

References
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(4th Ed.). Text Revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Au, A., & Lovegrove, B. (2001). The role of visual and auditory temporal processing in
reading irregular and nonsense words. Perception, 30, 11271142.
Bednarek, D. B., Saldana, D., Quintero-Gallego, E., Garcia, I., Grabowska, A., & Gomez, C. M.
(2004). Attentional deficit in dyslexia: A general or specific impairment? NeuroReport, 15,
17871790.
Bertera, J. H., & Rayner, K. (2000). Eye movements and the span of the effective stimulus in
visual search. Perception and Psychophysics, 62, 576585.
Brannan, J. R., & Williams, M. C. (1987). Allocation of visual attention in good and poor
readers. Perception and Psychophysics, 41, 2328.
Bruck, M. (1992). Persistence of dyslexics phonological awareness deficits. Developmental
Psychology, 28, 874886.
Brunswick, N., McCrory, E. J., Price, C. J., Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (1999). Explicit and
implicit processing of words and pseudowords by adult developmental dyslexics. Brain,
122, 19011917.
Buchholz, J., & Aimola Davies, A. (2005). Adults with dyslexia demonstrate space-based
and object-based covert attention deficits: Shifting attention to the periphery and shifting
attention between objects in the left visual field. Brain and Cognition, 57, 3034.
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DYSLEXIA 14: 247270 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/dys

268

J. Buchholz and A. Aimola Davies

Buchholz, J., & Aimola Davies, A. (2007a). Attentional blink deficits shown in dyslexia
depend on task demands. Vision Research, 47, 12921302.
Buchholz, J., & Aimola Davies, A. (2007b). An attentional orienting deficit in adults with
dyslexia. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 13(Supp. 2), 72.
Buchholz, J., & Aimola Davies, A. (2007c). An investigation of task constraints on
attentional orienting in adults with dyslexia. Australian Journal of Psychology,
59(Suppl. 1), 22.
Buchholz, J., & Aimola Davies, A. (submitted). Characterising the attentional orienting
deficits observed in adults with dyslexia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance.
Buchholz, J., & McKone, E. (2004). Adults with dyslexia show deficits on spatial frequency
doubling and visual attention tasks. Dyslexia, 10, 2443.
Castiello, U., & Umilta, C. (1990). Size of the attentional focus and efficiency of processing.
Acta Psychologia, 73, 195209.
Cheal, M. L., & Lyon, D. R. (1991). Central and peripheral precuing of forced-choice
discrimination. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43, 859880.
Cornelissen, P. L., Richardson, A., Mason, A., Fowler, S., & Stein, J. (1995). Contrast
sensitivity and coherent motion detection measured at photopic luminance levels in
dyslexics and controls. Vision Research, 35, 14831495.
Crawford, J. R., & Howell, D. C. (1998). Comparing an individuals test score
against norms derived from small samples. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 12, 482486.
Crawford, J. R., & Garthwaite, P. H. (2002). Investigation of the single case in
neuropsychology: Confidence limits on the abnormality of test scores and test score
differences. Neuropsychologia, 40, 11961208.
Crawford, J. R., & Garthwaite, P. H. (2005). Testing for suspected impairments and
dissociations in single-case studies in neuropsychology: Evaluation of alternatives
using Monte Carlo simulations and revised tests for dissociations. Neuropsychology, 19, 318331.
Facoetti, A., Lorusso, M. L., Paganoni, P., Umilta, C., & Mascetti, G. G. (2003). The role of
visuo-spatial attention in developmental dyslexia: Evidence from a rehabilitation study.
Cognitive Brain Research, 15, 154164.
Facoetti, A., & Molteni, M. (2001). The gradient of visual attention in developmental
dyslexia. Neuropsychologia, 39, 352357.
Facoetti, A., Paganoni, P., & Lorusso, M. L. (2000). The spatial distribution of visual
attention in developmental dyslexia. Experimental Brain Research, 132, 531538.
Facoetti, A., Paganoni, P., Turatto, M., Marzola, V., & Mascetti, G. G. (2000). Visuo-spatial
attention in developmental dyslexia. Cortex, 36, 109123.
Facoetti, A., Turatto, M., Lorusso, M. L., & Mascetti, G. G. (2001). Orienting of visual
attention in dyslexia: Evidence of asymmetric hemispheric control of attention.
Experimental Brain Research, 138, 4653.
Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Sommer, T., Raz, A., & Posner, M. I. (2002). Testing the efficiency
and independence of attentional networks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 340347.
Fawcett, A. J., & Nicolson, R. I. (1995). Persistence of phonological awareness deficits in
older children with dyslexia. Reading and Writing, 7, 361376.
Fawcett, A., & Nicolson, R. I. (1998). The dyslexia adult screening test. London, Edinburgh:
The Psychological Corporation, Harcourt Brace & Company.
Felton, R., Naylor, C., & Wood, F. (1990). Neuropsychological profile of adult dyslexics.
Brain and Language, 39, 485497.
Geiger, G., Lettvin, J. Y., & Fahle, M. (1994). Dyslexic children learn a new visual strategy
for reading: A controlled experiment. Vision Research, 34, 12231233.
Geiger, G., & Lettvin, J. Y. (1999). How dyslexics see and learn to read well. In Reading
and dyslexia: Visual and attentional processes (pp. 6490). J. E. Everatt (Ed.). London:
Routledge.
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DYSLEXIA 14: 247270 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/dys

Attentional Orienting in Adult Dyslexia

269

Hari, R., & Renvall, H. (2001). Impaired processing of rapid stimulus sequences in
dyslexia. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 525532.
Hari, R., Valta, M., & Uutela, K. (1999). Prolonged attentional dwell time in dyslexic adults.
Neuroscience Letters, 271, 202204.
Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F. (1990). Effects of foveal processing difficulty on the
perceptual span in reading: Implications for attention and eye movement control. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 417429.
Hill, N. I., Bailey, P. J., Griffiths, Y. M., & Snowling, M. J. (1999). Frequency acuity and
binaural masking release in dyslexic listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
106, L53L58.
Iles, J., Walsh, V., & Richardson, A. J. (2000). Visual search performance in dyslexia.
Dyslexia, 6, 163177.
Inhoff, A. W., Pollatsek, A., Posner, M. I., & Rayner, K. (1989). Covert attention and eye
movements during reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 6389.
Jastak, S., & Wilkinson, G. (1984). Wide-range achievement test (revised). Wilmington, DE:
Jastak Associates.
Laasonen, M., Service, E., & Virsu, V. (2002). Crossmodal temporal order and processing
acuity in developmentally dyslexic young adults. Brain and Language, 80, 340354.
LaBerge, D., & Brown, V. (1989). Theory of attentional operations in shape identification.
Psychological Review, 96, 101124.
Lovegrove, W., & Williams, M. C. (1993). Visual temporal processing deficits in specific
reading disability. In Visual processes in reading and reading disability. D. Willows, R. Kruk, &
E. Corcos (Eds.), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McArthur, G. M., & Hogben, J. H. (2001). Auditory backward recognition masking in
children with a specific language impairment and children with a specific reading
disability. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109, 10921100.
McKonkie, G. W., & Rayner, K. (1975). The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation
in reading. Perception and Psychophysics, 17, 578586.
Muller, H. J., & Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1989). Reflexive and voluntary orienting of visual
attention: Time course of activation and resistance to interruption. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 315330.
Nakayama, K., & Mackeben, M. (1989). Sustained and transient components of focal visual
attention. Vision Research, 29, 16311647.
Paulesu, E., Frith, U., Snowling, M. J., Gallagher, A., Morton, J., Frackowiak, R. S. J., &
Frith, C. D. (1996). Is developmental dyslexia a disconnection syndrome? Evidence from
PET scanning. Brain, 119, 143157.
Posner, M. I., & Petersen, S. E. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual
Review of Neuroscience, 13, 2542.
Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R. R., & Davidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of
signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 160174.
Posner, M. I., Walker, J. A., Friedrich, F. A., & Rafal, R. D. (1987). How do the parietal lobes
direct covert attention? Neuropsychologia, 25, 135145.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of
research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372422.
Rayner, K., & Fisher, D. L. (1987). Letter processing during eye fixations in visual search.
Perception and Psychophysics, 42, 87100.
Rayner, K., Murphy, L. A., Henderson, J. M., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). Selective attentional
dyslexia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 6, 357378.
Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rizzolatti, G., Riggio, L., Dascola, I., & Umilta, C. (1987). Reorienting attention across the
horizontal and vertical meridians: Evidence in favor of a premotor theory of attention.
Neuropsychologia, 25, 3140.
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DYSLEXIA 14: 247270 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/dys

270

J. Buchholz and A. Aimola Davies

Roach, N. W., Edwards, V. T., & Hogben, J. H. (2004). The tale is in the tail: An alternative
hypothesis for psychological performance variability in dyslexia. Perception, 33,
817830.
Roach, N. W., & Hogben, J. H. (2004). Attentional modulation of visual processing in adult
dyslexia: A spatial cuing deficit. Psychological Science, 15, 650654.
Schroyens, W., Vitu, F., Brysbaert, M., & dYdewalle, G. (1999). Eye movement control
during reading: Foveal load and parafoveal processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 52A, 10211046.
Stein, J. (1991). Visuospatial sense, hemispheric asymmetry and dyslexia. In J. Stein (Ed.),
Visual dyslexia: Vision and visual dysfunction (vol. 13), NY: Macmillan Press.
Steinman, B. A., Steinman, S. B., & Lehmkuhle, S. (1995). Visual attention mechanisms
show a center-surround organization. Vision Research, 35, 18591869.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th Ed.). MA, USA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Tallal, P. (1980). Auditory temporal perception, phonics, and reading disabilities in
children. Brain and Language, 9, 182198.
Turatto, M., Benso, F., Facoetti, A., Galfano, G., Mascetti, G. G., & Umilta, C. (2000).
Automatic and voluntary focusing of attention. Perception and Psychophysics, 62, 935952.
Vidyasagar, T. R., & Pammer, K. (1999). Impaired visual search in dyslexia relates to the
role of the magnocellular pathway in attention. NeuroReport, 10, 12831287.
Wechsler, D. (1999). Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence. San Antonio, TX: Psychological
Corporation.
Witton, C., Stein, J., Stoodley, C. J., Rosner, B. S., & Talcott, J. B. (2002). Separate influences
of acoustic AM and FM sensitivity on the phonological decoding skills of impaired and
normal readers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 866874.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DYSLEXIA 14: 247270 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/dys